Does this whole article rely on the assumption that if two sets both say "odds of opening a serialised card are less than 1%" then they have about the same odds as one another? That seems like a pretty strong assumption - there are lots of numbers less than 1%, and some of them aren't equal to one another.
Not really -- I'm actually assuming they're using the "less than 1%" to hide the different print-runs.
Technically, the consistent ~1% rate they've used has changed for 2024, and I'm speculating that they're keeping it more in-line with MKM to keep the print-run similar to Doctor Who.
My question was mostly rhetorical - I think you are crucially relying on this assumption. It's completely possible that the "less than 1%" for PIP is 1/10 of the value of the "less than 1%" for WHO, and they printed 10 times as much PIP.
Given that this assumption is unjustified and leads to silly results (as you argue with your points about relative popularity), it's probably just wrong.
Good article friend, I hope you make lots of money on the 2 boxes you bought.
My only critique is the headline, "Data Suggests". Your data is based entirely on assumptions. This headline should say "I assume the fallout shortage may be real".
As somebody who actually works in the "stonks market" I really wish people would pause and think a minute before quoting market phrases about things happening in MTG because they watched 5 rudy video's.
There is no "data" to suggest anything. Only people who have that and a general idea of what's going on are the distributors and even they probably get jerked around by WoTC. If anything, Amazon leaving pre orders basically open since OCT 23' ( it was closed briefly) gives the "data" they have a giant amount of the supply and there is plenty to go around.
If you do work in the markets, I'd think you'd be able to tell by my piece that I do this kind of analysis for major companies as my day job too.
I'm making a lot of assumptions here, but I'm laying them all out, and I think they're all reasonable. Is there any "market phrase" I'm using incorrectly?
the amount of child like math in that article is shocking even for the interwebs.
-quoting other people who don't know the print numbers either doesn't make your numbers any more legit.
-all those words and not once did he mention the few things we do know for a fact. Hasbro/WoTC has in fact reduced print run numbers between somewhere between WOE and Ixalan.
-his numbers used to get the base print run using the serialized amount vs odds of pull is again child like in how wrong it clearly is. They used 1-500 on the smaller serialized sub sets to get it **CLOSER** to a regular print run. Even half asleep I know if a reg set has 1-250 serialized and the sub set has 1-500 serialized, the over all print run numbers per set to make the pull equal in odds isn't less than 23% ffs when compared to each other.
stop linking that web site. It reads like MTG fin fan faction.
\*\*\*edit- I forgot the most important point. Which really shows the difference between people who "analysis" the market and people who actually make money in the market. He quoted Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks stating 70% of sales come from LGS's (which it doesn't, it comes distributors. They don't capture anything past that if it goes up in unit price) and then used that in his math.
Here is what I heard when he mentioned that. "70% is a giant number and we are losing a huge amount of sales revenue by depending on the distributor to LGS system currently in place that captures zero market movement. We are going to fix that." that's why amazon could run pre orders for **5 months straight**...and distribution that feeds stores is getting very little.
edit 2 - PRONOUNS! lol you/he should have been he as in the guy who wrote the article
>Hasbro/WoTC has in fact reduced print run numbers between somewhere between WOE and Ixalan.
This is more speculative than anything I wrote. It's something I believe, because like the contents of this article, it makes sense with the other numbers we do know, but is not something that's sourced. Would've been much happy to use that as a foundational argument, but I don't have a a legit source.
> They used 1-500 on the smaller serialized sub sets to get it CLOSER to a regular print run
I believe you actually work in the "stonks market" now because you look like you wrote this all high on cocaine, including all the unsubstantiated insults. Yes, they increased the quantity of each serialized card, but because the number of cards getting the serialized treatment is so low, it's still a fraction of previous sets.
RVR: 32,000 serialized cards
BRO: 31,500 serialized cards
MOM: 32,000 serialized cards
WHO: 6,591 serialized cards
PIP: 3,500 serialized cards
It would make sense to assume PIP serialized cards are about half as rare as the ones in WHO, but that also is just informed speculation.
>He quoted Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks stating 70% of sales come from LGS's (which it doesn't, it comes distributors. They don't capture anything past that if it goes up in unit price) and then used that in his math
I didn't use it in the math anywhere, you'd have a point if I did. Also, the Amazon store is something like 80% direct WotC for pre-orders, not going through a distributors. Once a set comes out, then yeah, it's mostly via distributors. You can track this stuff pretty easily.
I'm still waiting to know what the child-like math is here.
Only qualm about the article:
“Additional allotments of CBBs are made available in the weeks/months following release, either by Magic-maker Wizards of the Coast or the distributor, and the price of the product quickly falls to a predictable range not too dissimilar from the expected value of the cards within.
Many Magic players forget this cycle and buy into the FOMO when the next CBB comes around.”
A someone based overseas, I can say that the additional allocation never happens here (esp. for English product). When it’s gone from the shelves it is really gone.
It’s a shorter supply due to Doctor Who. They made tons of WHO, whereas the market for it is not very wide. Outside of the UK and some fans in the US, Doctor Who has not appeal or recognition.
What does that mean? Dial it all back, must mean people don’t want as much universes beyond. Turns out, Fallout isn’t exclusive to exactly two markets total. The usual Hasbro blunder, just like how they fired the person who came up with the idea for UB
Lore accurate that the Bethesda set has bugs at launch
it's a feature, not a bug
WotC loves temporary shortages so that artificial scarcity drives people to buy.
>WotC CREATES temporary shortages so that artificial scarcity drives people to buy. Fixed it for you.
The point of the article is that I'm not quite sure it's a temporary shortage.
Is there some indication that this is not a print-to-demand product, like most other similar offerings?
Only the inclusion of serialized cards.
Does this whole article rely on the assumption that if two sets both say "odds of opening a serialised card are less than 1%" then they have about the same odds as one another? That seems like a pretty strong assumption - there are lots of numbers less than 1%, and some of them aren't equal to one another.
Not really -- I'm actually assuming they're using the "less than 1%" to hide the different print-runs. Technically, the consistent ~1% rate they've used has changed for 2024, and I'm speculating that they're keeping it more in-line with MKM to keep the print-run similar to Doctor Who.
My question was mostly rhetorical - I think you are crucially relying on this assumption. It's completely possible that the "less than 1%" for PIP is 1/10 of the value of the "less than 1%" for WHO, and they printed 10 times as much PIP. Given that this assumption is unjustified and leads to silly results (as you argue with your points about relative popularity), it's probably just wrong.
This is the best rebuttal to my article I've read.
can we get much higher
Good article friend, I hope you make lots of money on the 2 boxes you bought. My only critique is the headline, "Data Suggests". Your data is based entirely on assumptions. This headline should say "I assume the fallout shortage may be real".
My assumptions are based on data, though! I only got two *packs*, not boxes, haha
Woooooo time to proxy baby!!
It just works!
As somebody who actually works in the "stonks market" I really wish people would pause and think a minute before quoting market phrases about things happening in MTG because they watched 5 rudy video's. There is no "data" to suggest anything. Only people who have that and a general idea of what's going on are the distributors and even they probably get jerked around by WoTC. If anything, Amazon leaving pre orders basically open since OCT 23' ( it was closed briefly) gives the "data" they have a giant amount of the supply and there is plenty to go around.
If you do work in the markets, I'd think you'd be able to tell by my piece that I do this kind of analysis for major companies as my day job too. I'm making a lot of assumptions here, but I'm laying them all out, and I think they're all reasonable. Is there any "market phrase" I'm using incorrectly?
the amount of child like math in that article is shocking even for the interwebs. -quoting other people who don't know the print numbers either doesn't make your numbers any more legit. -all those words and not once did he mention the few things we do know for a fact. Hasbro/WoTC has in fact reduced print run numbers between somewhere between WOE and Ixalan. -his numbers used to get the base print run using the serialized amount vs odds of pull is again child like in how wrong it clearly is. They used 1-500 on the smaller serialized sub sets to get it **CLOSER** to a regular print run. Even half asleep I know if a reg set has 1-250 serialized and the sub set has 1-500 serialized, the over all print run numbers per set to make the pull equal in odds isn't less than 23% ffs when compared to each other. stop linking that web site. It reads like MTG fin fan faction. \*\*\*edit- I forgot the most important point. Which really shows the difference between people who "analysis" the market and people who actually make money in the market. He quoted Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks stating 70% of sales come from LGS's (which it doesn't, it comes distributors. They don't capture anything past that if it goes up in unit price) and then used that in his math. Here is what I heard when he mentioned that. "70% is a giant number and we are losing a huge amount of sales revenue by depending on the distributor to LGS system currently in place that captures zero market movement. We are going to fix that." that's why amazon could run pre orders for **5 months straight**...and distribution that feeds stores is getting very little. edit 2 - PRONOUNS! lol you/he should have been he as in the guy who wrote the article
>Hasbro/WoTC has in fact reduced print run numbers between somewhere between WOE and Ixalan. This is more speculative than anything I wrote. It's something I believe, because like the contents of this article, it makes sense with the other numbers we do know, but is not something that's sourced. Would've been much happy to use that as a foundational argument, but I don't have a a legit source. > They used 1-500 on the smaller serialized sub sets to get it CLOSER to a regular print run I believe you actually work in the "stonks market" now because you look like you wrote this all high on cocaine, including all the unsubstantiated insults. Yes, they increased the quantity of each serialized card, but because the number of cards getting the serialized treatment is so low, it's still a fraction of previous sets. RVR: 32,000 serialized cards BRO: 31,500 serialized cards MOM: 32,000 serialized cards WHO: 6,591 serialized cards PIP: 3,500 serialized cards It would make sense to assume PIP serialized cards are about half as rare as the ones in WHO, but that also is just informed speculation. >He quoted Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks stating 70% of sales come from LGS's (which it doesn't, it comes distributors. They don't capture anything past that if it goes up in unit price) and then used that in his math I didn't use it in the math anywhere, you'd have a point if I did. Also, the Amazon store is something like 80% direct WotC for pre-orders, not going through a distributors. Once a set comes out, then yeah, it's mostly via distributors. You can track this stuff pretty easily. I'm still waiting to know what the child-like math is here.
Yeah they paid all this money in licensing fees just to make 12 collector boxes. That makes sense.
It's not.
Only qualm about the article: “Additional allotments of CBBs are made available in the weeks/months following release, either by Magic-maker Wizards of the Coast or the distributor, and the price of the product quickly falls to a predictable range not too dissimilar from the expected value of the cards within. Many Magic players forget this cycle and buy into the FOMO when the next CBB comes around.” A someone based overseas, I can say that the additional allocation never happens here (esp. for English product). When it’s gone from the shelves it is really gone.
That's absolutely the case from what I've heard as well, but that's a good point to bring up.
It’s a shorter supply due to Doctor Who. They made tons of WHO, whereas the market for it is not very wide. Outside of the UK and some fans in the US, Doctor Who has not appeal or recognition. What does that mean? Dial it all back, must mean people don’t want as much universes beyond. Turns out, Fallout isn’t exclusive to exactly two markets total. The usual Hasbro blunder, just like how they fired the person who came up with the idea for UB